DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS’s) submitted on March 17, 2026, May 15, 2026 & June 26, 2026, were in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 & 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krietzman [US 5,997,117]. Krietzman teaches of a computer cabinet (fig. 15), comprising a main frame (21) having a frame joint (31) and three frame beams (23) connected to the frame joint; and support beams (33’s, 35’s) attached to the main frame, wherein the frame joint is a hollow structure (note fig. 5 for instance) having a joint body (central body) and three joining members (39 & 41’s), the three joining members extend from the joint body to three different directions respectively (fig. 5), and each frame beam has an elongated channel (51) positioned within each frame beam to connect with the respective joining member extending from the joint body, each frame beam has two edges (such as 45, 47) extending away from the frame beam, the two edges being extending away from each other (note figs. 4a-4c), a plurality of frame holes (43) formed on each edge and used for attaching the support beams. As to Claim 3, a cross-section of the elongate channel matches with a cross-sectional profile of the respective joining member so that the beam frame and the respective joining member can be tightly joined together when the joining member is connected with the elongated channel (as would be the case with a slip fit coupling). As to Claim 4, each frame beam is an aluminum extrusion beam (col. 4, lines 19-22).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krietzman in view of Neri [US 4,691,970]. Krietzman teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed computer cabinet as outlined {mapped} above, but does not show a joining hole in the joining member to mate with a frame beam hole for accepting a fastener as prescribed by applicant. As to this feature, Neri is cited as an evidence reference for the known technique of providing a joining member (4) with at least one joining hole (25), and a frame beam (3) with at least one frame beam hole (24) that is positioned on a side wall of an elongated channel and corresponds to a respective joining hole of a joining member connected with the elongated channel of the frame beam, whereby a fastener (screw) is inserted into the corresponding frame beam hole and the joining hole to join the frame joint and the frame beam together to form a frame (6) of a cabinet (10 in an analogous art. Accordingly, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Krietzman so as to incorporate mating holes with a fastener in view of Neri’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing a means by which adjoining members of a frame are positively coupled in place without accidental decoupling of the members due to the fastener and frame members connection.
Claims 10, 13-16 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krietzman in view of Chang et al., [US 11,239,607]. Krietzman teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed computer cabinet as previously outlined, but does not show the incorporation of a support bracket affixed to a frame beam of the main frame, used to support a computer component {a graphics processing unit for instance}, wherein the support bracket includes a base structure and an arm structure as prescribed by applicant. Chang is cited as an evidence reference for the known use of a support bracket (40) being used to secure a computer component {11} within a computer chassis. The support bracket including a base structure (41) having a first side plate (such as right side (43)) and a second side plate (such as (411)) formed integrally and extending in the vertical direction (perspective direction can vary depending upon the viewed orientation of the bracket), a cross section of the base structure having a right-angled L shape (generally L-shaped), the second side plate having an elongated slot thereon (414); and an arm structure (42) having an arm plate (such as (421)) and a top plate (such as left side (43)) on top of the arm plate, the arm plate having a vertically arranged screw hole (424) at lower end of the arm plate, the screw hole being aligned with the elongated slot (shown), a manual screw (451) passing through the elongated slot and being screwed into the screw hole to affix the arm structure to the base structure. Accordingly, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Krietzman so as to incorporate a support bracket in view of Chang’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing a means by which electrical components / hardware can be securely fastened within a computer cabinet as dependent upon the needs and/or preferences of an end user. As modified, Chang only shows one screw and screw hole for connecting to the elongated slot. However, as to a plurality of holes and screws, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an additional screw hole and screw, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.; furthermore, the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Whereby, the incorporation of an additional hole and screw connecting to the elongated slot would increase the coupling strength due to the addition of another point of secured contact. Regarding Claim 13, as modified, a top edge of the arm plate is aligned with an edge of the top plate (shown as connected along a bend). Regarding Claim 14, as modified, the elongated slot allows the arm structure to be positioned at a desired position in the vertical direction (the arm structure can be elongated out along the base structure for adjustable lengths / heights). Regarding Claim 15, as modified, the arm plate of the arm structure can have an additional pair of vertically arranged screw holes that allow the arm structure to be positioned closer to the center of the computer cabinet so that the position of the top plate can be adaptable to various dimensions of a GPU assembly (such would be the case when additional holes & screws are added). Regarding Claim 16, as modified, a cushion pad (433) can be attached to a top surface of the top plate of the arm structure. Regarding Claim 18, as modified, the cabinet further comprising cover plates (such as (111) of Krietzman) attached to the main frame to enclose internal components or structures within the computer cabinet.
Claims 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krietzman in view of Summers et al., [US 5,909,359]. Krietzman teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed computer cabinet as previously outlined, but does not show the incorporation of a support bracket affixed to a frame beam of the main frame, used to support a computer component {a graphics processing unit for instance}, wherein the support bracket includes a base structure and an arm structure as prescribed by applicant. Summers is cited as an evidence reference for the known use of a support bracket (fig. 2) being used to secure a computer component {20} within a computer chassis (40). The support bracket including a base structure (30) having a first side plate (such as right side bent flanged plate) and a second side plate (such as the main body of (30)) formed integrally and extending in the vertical direction (perspective direction can vary depending upon the viewed orientation of the bracket), a cross section of the base structure having a right-angled L shape (generally L-shaped along the end), the second side plate having an elongated slot thereon (80); and an arm structure (60) having an arm plate (such as the bottom plate with holes (70)) and a top plate (such as the top plate with holes (50)) on top of the arm plate, the arm plate having vertically arranged screw holes (70) at lower end of the arm plate, the screw holes being aligned with the elongated slot (80), manual screws (90) passing through the elongated slot and being screwed into the screw holes to affix the arm structure to the base structure. Accordingly, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Krietzman so as to incorporate a support bracket in view of Summers’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing a means by which electrical components / hardware can be securely fastened within a computer cabinet as dependent upon the needs and/or preferences of an end user. Regarding Claim 11, as modified, the first side plate has screw holes (50) at lower end of the first side plate, and the support bracket can be affixed to a frame beam of the main frame by screws (shown in fig. 2 of Summers) passing through frame holes (such as the holes used to secure the frame beams for instance) and screwed into the screw holes of the first side plate. Regarding Claim 12, as modified, the first side plate has a tongue-shaped plate (such as the left side bent flanged plate) at the lower end of the first side plate, the bottom edge of which can touch an edge of the frame beam to which the support bracket is affixed. Regarding Claim 13, as modified, a top edge of the arm plate is aligned with an edge of the top plate (shown as connected along a bend). Regarding Claim 14, as modified, the elongated slot allows the arm structure to be positioned at a desired position in the vertical direction (the arm structure can be displaced along the base structure for adjustable lengths / heights depending upon viewed orientation). Regarding Claim 15, as modified, the arm plate of the arm structure can have an additional pair of vertically arranged screw holes that allow the arm structure to be positioned closer to the center of the computer cabinet so that the position of the top plate can be adaptable to various dimensions of a GPU assembly. The position being taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate additional holes / screws within the arm structure, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.; furthermore, the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Whereby, additional holes provides additional contact points at which the arm structure can be secured to the base structure. Regarding Claim 16, as modified, a cushion pad (such as (100) for instance) can be attached to a top surface of the top plate of the arm structure via intervening component (20) for instance. Regarding Claim 17, the first side plate of the base structure of the support bracket can be fastened to a frame beam at a position that is adjustable depending on dimensions of a GPU assembly {i.e., the computer / electrical component}. Regarding Claim 18, as modified, the cabinet further comprising cover plates (such as (111) of Krietzman) attached to the main frame to enclose internal components or structures within the computer cabinet.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over amended Claims 1-3, 5 & 10-13 of co-pending Application No. 19/416,806 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claimed features in the instant application are accounted for within the claimed scope of the reference application. For example, the claimed features of Claims 1 & 5 are represented within the claimed scope of amended Claim 1 of the ‘806 application; wherein the claimed features of Claim 2 are represented within the claimed scope of amended Claim 2 of the ‘806 application; wherein the claimed features of Claim 3 are represented within the claimed scope of amended Claim 3 of the ‘806 application; wherein the claimed features of Claim 4 are represented within the claimed scope of amended Claim 5 of the ‘806 application; wherein the claimed features of Claim 6 are represented within the claimed scope of amended Claim 10 of the ‘806 application; wherein the claimed features of Claim 7 are represented within the claimed scope of amended Claim 11 of the ‘806 application; wherein the claimed features of Claim 8 are represented within the claimed scope of amended Claim 12 of the ‘806 application; wherein the claimed features of Claim 9 are represented within the claimed scope of amended Claim 13 of the ‘806 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure – see the attached Form PTO-892 showing various computer casings / support brackets relating to computer and/or rack assemblies.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES O HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6866. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 am - 4:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Daniel Troy can be reached at 571-270-3742. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JOH
September 24, 2026
/James O Hansen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights